The Instigator
Cujosrevenge
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
feverish
Con (against)
Winning
37 Points

The God in question does indeed exsist

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 8 votes the winner is...
feverish
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 9/17/2009 Category: Religion
Updated: 8 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,828 times Debate No: 9509
Debate Rounds (2)
Comments (7)
Votes (8)

 

Cujosrevenge

Pro

The Bible teaches us that there are 2 types of people in this world, those who profess the truth of God's existence and those who suppress the truth of God's existence. The options of 'seeking' God, or not believing in God are unavailable. The Bible never attempts to prove the existence of God as it declares that the existence of God is so obvious that we are without excuse for not believing in Him.

Romans 1 vs. 18 - 21 says:

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities - his eternal power and divine nature - have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
Only in a universe governed by God can universal, immaterial, unchanging laws exist. Only in a universe governed by God can rational thinking be possible. We use rational thinking to prove things. Therefore...
THE PROOF THAT GOD EXSISTS IS THAT WITHOUT HIM, YOU COULDNT PROVE ANYTHING.

_______________________________

"Does God exist? Is there evidence for the existence of God?"

Answer: The existence of God cannot be proved or disproved. The Bible says that we must accept by faith the fact that God exists: "And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to Him must believe that He exists and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him" (Hebrews 11:6). If God so desired, He could simply appear and prove to the whole world that He exists. But if He did that, there would be no need for faith. "Then Jesus told him, ‘Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed'" (John 20:29).

That does not mean, however, that there is no evidence of God's existence. The Bible states, "The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of His hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge. There is no speech or language where their voice is not heard. Their voice goes out into all the earth, their words to the ends of the world" (Psalm 19:1-4). Looking at the stars, understanding the vastness of the universe, observing the wonders of nature, seeing the beauty of a sunset—all of these things point to a Creator God. If these were not enough, there is also evidence of God in our own hearts. Ecclesiastes 3:11 tells us, "…He has also set eternity in the hearts of men." Deep within us is the recognition that there is something beyond this life and someone beyond this world. We can deny this knowledge intellectually, but God's presence in us and all around us is still obvious. Despite this, the Bible warns that some will still deny God's existence: "The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God'" (Psalm 14:1). Since the vast majority of people throughout history, in all cultures, in all civilizations, and on all continents believe in the existence of some kind of God, there must be something (or someone) causing this belief.

In addition to the biblical arguments for God's existence, there are logical arguments. First, there is the ontological argument. The most popular form of the ontological argument uses the concept of God to prove God's existence. It begins with the definition of God as "a being than which no greater can be conceived." It is then argued that to exist is greater than to not exist, and therefore the greatest conceivable being must exist. If God did not exist, then God would not be the greatest conceivable being, and that would contradict the very definition of God.

A second argument is the teleological argument. The teleological argument states that since the universe displays such an amazing design, there must have been a divine Designer. For example, if the Earth were significantly closer or farther away from the sun, it would not be capable of supporting much of the life it currently does. If the elements in our atmosphere were even a few percentage points different, nearly every living thing on earth would die. The odds of a single protein molecule forming by chance is 1 in 10243 (that is a 10 followed by 243 zeros). A single cell is comprised of millions of protein molecules.

A third logical argument for God's existence is called the cosmological argument. Every effect must have a cause. This universe and everything in it is an effect. There must be something that caused everything to come into existence. Ultimately, there must be something "un-caused" in order to cause everything else to come into existence. That "un-caused" cause is God.

A fourth argument is known as the moral argument. Every culture throughout history has had some form of law. Everyone has a sense of right and wrong. Murder, lying, stealing, and immorality are almost universally rejected. Where did this sense of right and wrong come from if not from a holy God?

Despite all of this, the Bible tells us that people will reject the clear and undeniable knowledge of God and believe a lie instead. Romans 1:25 declares, "They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen." The Bible also proclaims that people are without excuse for not believing in God: "For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—His eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse" (Romans 1:20).

People claim to reject God's existence because it is "not scientific" or "because there is no proof." The true reason is that once they admit that there is a God, they also must realize that they are responsible to God and in need of forgiveness from Him (Romans 3:23, 6:23). If God exists, then we are accountable to Him for our actions. If God does not exist, then we can do whatever we want without having to worry about God judging us. That is why many of those who deny the existence of God cling strongly to the theory of naturalistic evolution—it gives them an alternative to believing in a Creator God. God exists and ultimately everyone knows that He exists. The very fact that some attempt so aggressively to disprove His existence is in fact an argument for His existence.

How do we know God exists? As Christians, we know God exists because we speak to Him every day. We do not audibly hear Him speaking to us, but we sense His presence, we feel His leading, we know His love, we desire His grace. Things have occurred in our lives that have no possible explanation other than God. God has so miraculously saved us and changed our lives that we cannot help but acknowledge and praise His existence. None of these arguments can persuade anyone who refuses to acknowledge what is already obvious. In the end, God's existence must be accepted by faith (Hebrews 11:6). Faith in God is not a blind leap into the dark; it is safe step into a well-lit room where the vast majority of people are already standing.
feverish

Con

Hello and thanks to my opponent for the opportunity to debate this fascinating topic.

Although I have had other religious themed debates on here before this will be the first time I am debating the existence of a god.

Before I begin I would like to reassure my opponent that while I may criticise them in my arguments I intend no personal disrespect to her faith, her beliefs or convictions.

---

My opponent does not clearly define "The God in question" but the capitalisation of the word god and the fact that she is a Christian makes it pretty clear that we are discussing the God of Christianity.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Therefore she has quite a hefty burden, she must prove the existence not just of a creator god but that this is The God worshipped by Christians, omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipresent, eternal, everlasting, comprising the Trinity etc.

The Bible teaches many things, most good (love thy neighbour - Mathew 5:43 but actually a reference to Leviticus 19: 17-18) and also plenty bad (stone the rape victim who does not scream loudly enough to death - Deuteronomy 22:23-24) but precisely WHAT the Bible says is totally irrelevant to whether or not it is correct in it's depiction of God.

Like any other sacred text [ http://www.adherents.com... ] the Bible is claimed to be the truth but there is no way it can be regarded as factual evidence of anything other than a belief system. It is a carefully doctored and edited collection of various ancient documents, most of which contradict each other but it is presumed to be infallible and divinely inspired despite the fact that it was undoubtedly written, edited and re-written by human hand.

<"Only in a universe governed by God can universal, immaterial, unchanging laws exist. Only in a universe governed by God can rational thinking be possible">

There is no explanation given for these premises, please explain why these laws or rational thought would not be possible.

<"We use rational thinking to prove things. Therefore...
THE PROOF THAT GOD EXSISTS IS THAT WITHOUT HIM, YOU COULDNT PROVE ANYTHING.">

This makes no sense without a reason to accept the previous statements.

It seems to be some corruption of "Cogito ergo sum (I think therefore I am)" into "Cogito ergo Deus futurus (I think therefore God is)"
http://en.wikipedia.org...

_____________________

<"The existence of God cannot be proved or disproved.">

My opponent seems to be conceding the debate here. She has made the claim that God exists and admits she can't prove it.

<"That does not mean, however, that there is no evidence of God's existence">

I disagree. If there is evidence for something then proving it is usually quite straightforward. The fact that something "cannot be proved" would indicate that there is no evidence for it's existence.

Again the Bible is no more proof of the existence of God than the Bhagavad Gita is proof of the existence of Krishna, or The Sword In The Stone proof of the existence of King Arthur.

---
<"The most popular form of the ontological argument uses the concept of God to prove God's existence.">

Using God to prove God is an automatic logic fail. A=A?

<"If God did not exist, then God would not be the greatest conceivable being, and that would contradict the very definition of God.">

No. If God did not exist he would still be the greatest conceivable FICTIONAL being. No contradiction there.

The fact that Superman doesn't exist doesn't prove that he does.

---

<"The teleological argument states that since the universe displays such an amazing design, there must have been a divine Designer.">

Most of that stuff is pretty amazing to me too but the 'amazingness' of something is subjective and in the eye of the beholder.

The fact of a human on the moon would have been off the amazing chart to the ancients but is taken for granted by most of us but this is a human, not a divine achievement. If you ever take LSD or a similar powerful hallucinogenic you will find yourselves amazed by the most mundane things, the complex pattern of leaves in a teacup could blow you away with its awesomeness but this has appeared by chance not design.

Colonies of ants and other insects can assemble amazingly complex structures yet none would claim that an ant has the intelligence of a human architect, even one who designs buildings that are dull and unattractive by comparison. Lastly in the realm of free and expressive art, amazing and beautiful creations can be made without conscious design.
Sun-Ra's experiments in free jazz are a wonderful example. http://www.rocksbackpages.com...

---
<"Every effect must have a cause. This universe and everything in it is an effect. There must be something that caused everything to come into existence. Ultimately, there must be something "un-caused" in order to cause everything else to come into existence. That "un-caused" cause is God.">

This is circular logic that doesn't prove anything. It basically says that EVERY effect has a cause EXCEPT God and is equivalent to saying "God exists because I say so". If everything has a cause then what caused God? God's god?

---

"Every culture throughout history has had some form of law. Everyone has a sense of right and wrong. Murder, lying, stealing, and immorality are almost universally rejected. Where did this sense of right and wrong come from if not from a holy God?

This question almost answers itself. "Everyone has a sense of right and wrong", it comes from being rational beings that make decisions and from natural feelings of empathy and sympathy. Other people affect our own opinions with theirs, particularly parents but there is no need to look for a supernatural source for morality.

Morality is also clearly not entirely objective as my opponent is arguing because different people (and different religions) define right and wrong differently. For example I would perhaps not consider it wrong for a starving man to steal food off a man who has way more than he needs, whereas if the action was reversed I almost certainly would.

---

<"Despite all of this, the Bible tells us...">

As I have already argued, the Bible is way off topic here. Fantasia is not proof that Mickey Mouse is real. We are discussing the existence of a being, not of a concept or a religion.

---

<"God exists and ultimately everyone knows that He exists.">

I think that if 'non-believers' truly believed then the reality of an eternal inferno would be ample motivation for becoming Christian. Clearly they genuinely disbelieve it.

<"The very fact that some attempt so aggressively to disprove His existence is in fact an argument for His existence.">

This argument is self-defeating because it would lead to the conclusion that: 'the very fact that some attempt so aggressively to PROVE His existence is in fact an argument for His NON-existence.'

---

<"How do we know God exists?.....we sense His presence" etc.>

A feeling is not evidence, if it was then the mythology of every single other religion would also be true. Some people who claim to sense supernatural presences are classed as delusional and locked up in asylums.

I personally believe that we all delude ourselves regularly as a way of coping with things that we are uncomfortable with. At a mundane level this could be as simple as applying non-existent motives to others as a way to justify their behaviour to ourselves.

<" Faith in God is not a blind leap into the dark; it is safe step into a well-lit room where the vast majority of people are already standing.">

As baseless as an appeal to popular opinion is, the majority of people are not in fact Christian.

http://www.religioustolerance.org...

Looking forward to the next round.

Thank you.
Debate Round No. 1
Cujosrevenge

Pro

I appreciate my opponent saying "Before I begin I would like to reassure my opponent that while I may criticise them in my arguments I intend no personal disrespect to her faith, her beliefs or convictions."
My opponent made the following statement:
<"That does not mean, however, that there is no evidence of God's existence">

I disagree. If there is evidence for something then proving it is usually quite straightforward. The fact that something "cannot be proved" would indicate that there is no evidence for it's existence.

Exactly. But whose to say that it can not be proved? Lets say for example... Dinosaurs have been proved to have existed... but people ONLY know what they hear or are taught by others. Scientists and people can only prove things in the date span that they are studying in. Whose to say that anyone cant prove the existence of God? God existence was before the existence of man.

I give Kudos to you for trying... but I don't think that you'll ever understand until God himself stands in front of you.
Wait until the end of the world, and we will see whose right.
Only time will tell though.
feverish

Con

Thanks for the debate Cujosrevenge.

My opponent has chosen to ignore almost all of my responses to her first round arguments so I can only assume that she concedes them.

___________

My Opponent: (round 1) : "The existence of God cannot be proved....That does not mean, however, that there is no evidence of God's existence".

Me: "I disagree. If there is evidence for something then proving it is usually quite straightforward. The fact that something "cannot be proved" would indicate that there is no evidence for it's existence."

My Opponent: (round 2) "Exactly. But whose to say that it can not be proved?"

________

As you can see, it is my opponent herself who first made the observation that God could not be proved. Stating this and subsequently agreeing with my re-wording of it seems to be completely conceding the debate.

________

PRO: "Lets say for example... Dinosaurs have been proved to have existed... but people ONLY know what they hear or are taught by others. Scientists and people can only prove things in the date span that they are studying in."

I have seen the bones of dinosaurs with my own eyes but never seen evidence of the Christian God.

PRO: "Whose to say that anyone cant prove the existence of God?"

You have said it yourself, so have I and many others.

PRO: "God existence was before the existence of man."

I can't just accept that as fact without any kind of evidence.

PRO: "I don't think that you'll ever understand until God himself stands in front of you.
Wait until the end of the world, and we will see whose right."

I don't expect to be around if and when the end of the world comes but who knows? I'm not sure what the voting period on this debate is but assuming it is indefinite, I hope people don't wait until the end of the world to vote for whoever they thought presented more convincing arguments etc.

Thanks again for a fun discussion.

CON.
Debate Round No. 2
7 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 7 records.
Posted by feverish 8 years ago
feverish
Rza (Wu Tang) on the subject of proving the existence of God (or in his case, Allah):

"It's a mission impossible, it's purely philosophical but you call him on your death bed when you laying in the hospital".
Posted by ArmedTortoise 8 years ago
ArmedTortoise
Pro just copied and pasted her first round. Here:
www.gotquestions.org/Does-God-exist.html
Posted by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
Pro has the burden of proof to establish the truth of the resolution. Pro then concedes the resolution cannot be proved. That concedes the debate, as Con notes.

Pro might have phrased the resolution as something along the lines of "The existence of the Christian God cannot be disproved." An omnipotent, omniscient, and good God is disproved by the Argument from Evil and by the Argument from Non-belief. However, slacking off a little on omnipotence, say with a devil, might maintain a Christian God and avoid the disproofs.
Posted by feverish 8 years ago
feverish
I won't pretend to know what on Earth Kleptin and Skeptic are talking about, I tried to approach this debate more from a lay man's point of view but I hope I did it justice.
Posted by TheSkeptic 8 years ago
TheSkeptic
I agree with you Kleptin, but I think most atheists should at least look at Plantinga's revision of the Ontological argument. Not because it proves the existence of God (it's just Plantinga playing around with his modal logic), but that it's just one of the more contemporary versions used by philosophers of religion (in the same way classical compatibilism has been overruled by contemporary compatibilism, for the most part).
Posted by Kleptin 8 years ago
Kleptin
Anselm's Ontological, disproven by Kant.
Dembski's fine tuned Universe, disproven by every scientist worth his weight in salt.
Causality, invalidated by the mere fact that it is a supernatural conclusion to an inductive natural law.
Morality, which commits enough logical fallacies to teach an entire course on.

It's like watching a movie that you can mouth the dialogue to >.>
Posted by Cujosrevenge 8 years ago
Cujosrevenge
<<<VERY INTERESTING VIDEO
8 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 8 records.
Vote Placed by NDWolfwood5268 8 years ago
NDWolfwood5268
CujosrevengefeverishTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by patsox834 8 years ago
patsox834
CujosrevengefeverishTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Vote Placed by KeithKroeger91 8 years ago
KeithKroeger91
CujosrevengefeverishTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Vote Placed by Julius_Caesar 8 years ago
Julius_Caesar
CujosrevengefeverishTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by Floid 8 years ago
Floid
CujosrevengefeverishTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07 
Vote Placed by RoyLatham 8 years ago
RoyLatham
CujosrevengefeverishTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Vote Placed by Sniper213 8 years ago
Sniper213
CujosrevengefeverishTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by atheistman 8 years ago
atheistman
CujosrevengefeverishTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:07